Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria has delivered a definitive legal clarification that could have significant implications for the Department of State Services and its officers. Adeboro Adamson, SAN, has drawn a sharp distinction between the constitutional immunity enjoyed by the nation's top political officeholders and the legal status of security operatives, emphasizing that public officers, including DSS personnel, are not immune from legal action. This statement has ignited a crucial debate about the legal boundaries and personal liability of law enforcement officials.
The legal logic articulated by Mr. Adamson appears to be a direct response to a recent, high-profile judgment where a Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay ₦100 million in damages for defamation. In that case, two DSS operatives, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, successfully sued the civil society organization for alleging that they had unlawfully invaded SERAP’s office and harassed its staff. The court found SERAP liable for defamation and ordered the payment of damages, a public apology, and litigation costs.
However, Mr. Adamson’s intervention appears to caution security agencies against misinterpreting such victories as a blanket shield. He reportedly distinguished the immunity granted in courts from the concept of absolute protection for state agents. The legal expert noted that lawsuits against security agents are a pathway for citizens to seek redress. "If they were on an official DSS assignment and their reputation is alleged to have been harmed, the DSS can still defend them in line with its mandate. However, this does not deprive them of their constitutional rights or their vulnerability to legal process," Mr. Adamson argued.
The cornerstone of Mr. Adamson’s legal argument rests on the interpretation of Section 308 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended). This section provides a special immunity shield, but it is an exclusive club reserved for only a handful of individuals: the President, the Vice-President, state Governors, and their Deputy Governors. "Only President, Governor, Deputy Governor are immune from being sued," he declared, emphatically excluding all other public officeholders. Indeed, legal commentators and Supreme Court precedents confirm this restrictive interpretation. The immunity clause applies only to these specific political executives while they are in office. Other public figures, including ministers, senators, commissioners, and critically, security agency personnel, do not enjoy this constitutional immunity and can be sued in their official or personal capacity for torts like defamation, false imprisonment, or assault.
The distinction is critical for the operational conduct of the state police. The implication for a DSS officer is that while they have the authority and duty to act, they also have a personal legal responsibility for their actions. An unlawful detention, an illegal search, or a defamatory statement can lead to personal liability. This understanding of legal consequences is a cornerstone of the rule of law and the prevention of authoritarian drift. It signals to security agencies that judicial oversight is a mechanism for maintaining a professional, accountable force.
Human rights lawyers and activists have welcomed Mr. Adamson’s clarification, as civil society groups have often found themselves on the other side of the courtroom. The recent judgment in favor of the DSS operatives was seen by some as a "chilling" precedent in a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). However, Mr. Adamson's statement reinforces that while citizens and NGOs can be held liable for defaming agents of the state, the agents themselves are not immune from accountability for abuse of power.
In the ongoing legal debate, the SERAP case serves as a significant test case. The judgment against it has been appealed, but Mr. Adamson's comments highlight the delicate balance courts attempt to strike: protecting the reputations of public servants who act lawfully while ensuring that the constitution’s promise of a right of redress for citizens does not become a dead letter. For the DSS, the message is clear: the badge is a symbol of duty, not a license for impunity.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments